Category: Uncategorized

Today’s blog is opening the electronic mailbag to answer some questions and respond to comments.

• Question from Scott and many others. “What is a blog?” Blog is short for weblog. A weblog is a journal (or newsletter) that is frequently updated and intended for general public consumption. Blogs generally represent the personality of the author or the Web site. Authoring a blog, maintaining a blog or adding an article to an existing blog is called “blogging”. Individual articles on a blog are called “blog posts”, “posts”, or “entries”. The person who posts these entries is called a “blogger”.
  
• During my post about Peter Singer on Thursday, December 1st I offered membership in an organization to be called “The Rumps of the Know-Nothings”. That was a response to the description that Mr. Singer used to categorize religious people who hold onto outdated views of the sanctity of life. The bad news…only courageous reader Steve has joined my new organization. The good news…it will be easy to find a venue large enough for our meetings.
  
• Continuing with Mr.Singer I appreciate the clarification by reader Jonathon about Singer’s views on infanticide. Jonathon points out that Singer does not advocate infanticide in his book Practical Ethics if the parents want the baby. Jonathon did not seem to understand that the baby described in the post was my daughter. It is hard to imagine how conflicted your emotions are unless you have been there. I still believe that Singer’s philosophy would have leaned toward euthanizing my daughter because she took money and resources better used on children with a chance for personhood. I would argue that he has adopted the escape clause as a stepping stone to his overall vision that the sanctity of life is related to potential to contribute to society. I appreciate the clarity but remain terrified of the implications of his thinking.
  
• Reader Bridgette wondered about the reaction to the article in the Dallas Morning News entitled 10 ideas on the way out. The articles was the subject of posts on December 1st and 2nd. She was curious how such such controversial predictions would play in our little old Bible belt red state. The reaction was predictable. Many were outraged by the content but others were more perplexed by the people chosen to address those views. I suppose the purpose was to stir debate and controversy. Perhaps someday a blogger will dig out these predictions and see how they fared. I pray they were dreadfully wrong.
  
• Bridgette also pointed out an interesting website (www.jews4fairness.org) that defends Christians in the culture war. Check it out.
  
• The war over Christmas is giving me tired head.

 

 

There has been a politically correct Christmas greeting that has circulated the internet for the past couple of years.

Best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral, winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most joyous traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, but with respect for the religious persuasion of others who choose to practice their own religion as well as those who choose not to practice a religion at all.

Perhaps that should be adopted as official “safe“ greeting for retailers this Christmas season. Target has been widely vilified for allegedly forbidding their employees from saying Merry Christmas. It turns out that was not exactly true. The story is now widely circulated and it has become another example of how too many Christians leap before we look in response to cultural issues. Please, please, please verify every email and petition for validity before you hit send.

What Target has done is cleansed their website of every Christmas reference. They even list shipping deadlines to get gifts to their destination by the 25th. Target can’t even bring themselves to identify that day as Christmas. I find it all an odd mix of amusing and confusing and maddening.

I suppose you can make an argument for the separation of church and state although in practice the goal seems to be the amputation of church and state. But for retailers to wrap Christmas in a brown paper wrapper like it is offensive material makes no sense to me.

When I move into a culture I don’t expect the entire populace to change for me. Perhaps I should and this will be my test case. I grew up in Ohio as an avid Cleveland Browns fan. Being a Browns fan is a chronic disease for which there is no known cure. When I moved to Dallas I was immediately offended by the aggressive Dallas Cowboy fans. Cowboy stuff was everywhere including in the public square. Politicians endorsed the Cowboys. Cowboy zealots tried to proselytize me to become a Cowboy fan. They inferred that having faith in the Browns made me a second class citizen. The Cowboys were clearly the football religion of the state and the iconography was everywhere. I was offended.

Now I believe that my rights as a Browns fan are being violated. I fear my kids exposure to the Cowboys star will cause them to be Cowboys fans. I am greatly offended when I go to the mall and somebody says, “How ‘bout dem Boys”! I want all stores to simply display “Go NFL Teams” signs and greet me with a “Happy Football” greeting…no more exclusionary “Go Cowboys” language. 

Silly isn’t it? But is the Christmas argument any different? I am all for being inclusive. Have a Hannukah display. Put up a Kwanza sign. Throw in Happy Holidays for the atheists and agnostics and people of other faiths. But mix in a Merry Christmas. The holiday is called Christmas.

For the most part Christmas has become an economic and not a religious holiday. There are so many icons like Santa Claus and Rudolph and the Grinch that are not at all related to the religious aspect of the Holiday. I just find it hard to comprehend the argument that a nativity scene or a Merry Christmas sign is oppressive in this vast landscape of Holiday icons.

Oddly one of the most powerful reminders of the Christian importance of Christmas comes from the genius of the late Charles Schultz. His classic show A Charlie Brown Christmas has a simple, elegant, and classic message. Charlie Brown has failed miserably in his attempt to find the true meaning of Christmas. But then Linus reads the following passage from the King James version of the Bible.

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.  And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

And then Linus says to Charlie Brown, “That’s what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown.”

Amen. And by the way….Merry Christmas. Merry Christmas. Merry Christmas.

Celebrity atheist Michael Newdow had apparently been out of the spotlight far too long so he recently filed a lawsuit to have “In God We Trust” removed from coins. He believes the phrase violates the rights of atheists and he uses logic that is so tortured it is painful. Mr. Newdow is a physician with some training as a lawyer. I am hoping his skills as a doctor are better than his logic as an attorney. If the following is a sample of his closing argument skills then God…uhh…somebody help his clients. A bit of background is in order. Newdow is a minister ordained by the Universal Life Church. The ULC offers free ordination to anyone and includes (no kidding) the Reverend Courtney Love and the Reverend Tony Danza among it’s ordainees (their church conventions must be interesting). It seems that the Rev.Newdow started a church that wishes to raise money for it’s cause by selling pens for a buck. But here comes Newdow’s agonizing dilemma.

“I’m a minister of the First Amendmist Church of True Science and I can’t raise funds or anything else because all the coins say that we believe in God, and that’s completely against our principles,” Newdow said.

Rev. Newdow takes only cash and and he must (as a matter of principle) refuse to take any currency that says “God” on it. So, the Reverend/Doctor reasons, his religious rights are being violated because all U.S. coins have the words “in God we trust” on them. Since Newdow doesn’t trust in God he can’t take the money for his church. Can’t you feel his pain?

Newdow explained how he was inspired to challenge the offending inscription.

“One day I was just looking at the coins (that) is what brought this up. I saw ‘In God We Trust’ on my coins. I said, ‘I don’t trust in God,’ what is this? And I recalled there was something in the Constitution that said you’re not allowed to do that and so I did some research. And as soon as I did the research, I realized the law seemed to be on my side and I filed the suit. It’s a cool thing to do. Everyone should try it.”

Well Mr. Newdow it often seems like everybody is trying “it” (a lawsuit) for every real and perceived offense.

Further exploring of Newdow’s website revealed he is also a song writer and singer. He has a CD of his eleven best church-separation hits available on his site (seriously). They are written and performed by Newdow himself and one of them (I am not making this up) is a rap. The idea of a 52 year old white lawyer rapping must surely violate some constitutional right of mine.

“One day I was listening to a CD and I heard this middle-aged guy rapping and I said what is this? So I did some research on noise pollution and the law seemed to be on my side and I filed the suit. It’s a cool thing to do.” Whether I have a case or not…Newdow’s hip hop lyrics are worth a look…

It’s clear that it cannot be constitutional behavior

For government to claim that Jesus Christ is some big saviour

But that’s what we were told, and you know we were told it twice

For Muslims, Jews and Atheists, you know that isn’t nice 

But we all will pay the price. It is really quite concise.

A slice of vice that does suffice. An imprecise way to entice. 

You know that it’s illegal from a governmental perch

If you need your religion get your booty into church

I can’t justify giving the guy any money to buy this CD but I am dying to hear this performed. I do have a couple of questions for my main man who could adopt the hip hop name “No God on my 50 Cent”.

First…where does the government claim that Jesus Christ is some big savior on a coin or pledge or building or anywhere else? The reference is always to God which would seem to not give you street cred with the Muslims and Jews.

Second…how does a man with multiple degrees think that he can use the word “booty” in a song? 

A couple of serious thoughts on Michael Newdow and the this whole movement to remove all vestiges of “religion” from the public square.

As Christians we need to be very careful to not let emotion rule. I see posts calling Newdow names and saying really ugly things about him. We need to follow the example of Paul who engaged those who opposed the faith with well reasoned and thoughtful discussions.

The longer Paul waited in Athens for Silas and Timothy, the angrier he got–all those idols! The city was a junkyard of idols.

He discussed it with the Jews and other like-minded people at their meeting place. And every day he went out on the streets and talked with anyone who happened along. He got to know some of the Epicurean and Stoic intellectuals pretty well through these conversations. Some of them dismissed him with sarcasm: “What an airhead!” But others, listening to him go on about Jesus and the resurrection, were intrigued: “That’s a new slant on the gods. Tell us more.”   Acts 17  The Message

Research the issue. Have a point. Make your point with grace. Demonstrate the hope that lives within you.

Next, there is an inherent by product of living in a nation with free speech. That by product is that we will all be offended to some degree by others. You can’t have the right not to be offended and free speech Those two ideals are mutually exclusive. 

I don’t have a huge emotional stake in this debate about “In God We Trust” on our coins. I would prefer that the inscription stay on our currency. But my real preference would be that those of us who claim to be followers of Christ would truly live a life that demonstrates trust in God. For that Michael Newdow has no legal recourse.

The Dallas Morning News ran a recent article called ‘10 ideas on the way out’. Yesterday we discussed Peter Singer’s ideas about the sanctity of life. Today we tee up the topic of monogamy. Our “expert” on the subject is a gentleman named Jacques Attalli. Here is his opening salvo…

“Monogamy, which is really no more than a useful social convention, will not survive. It has rarely been honored in practice; soon, it will vanish even as an ideal.”

Okay…it has officially happened. I have now become that grumpy old man that I used to ridicule. Mr.Attalli had my blood boiling after his first 29 words. Not bad. First of all, marriage is much more than a “useful social convention”. Marriage is the God ordained structure for family and societal health. And in my primitive circles monogamy is not rarely practiced. There are couples all over the world that have the maturity and the emotional health to remain in a monogamous and loving relationship.

“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,  and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”  Mark 10:6-9 (NIV)

I believe there is a spiritual dimension involved in the sexual union that makes it more than an episode on Animal Planet.

Mr.Attalli would disagree.

“Just as most societies now accept successive love relationships (they do?), soon we will acknowledge the legality and acceptability of simultaneous love.”

Somebody help me here. What in the wide, wide world of sports are successive love relationships? Perhaps another word to describe a man involved in “successive love relationships” would be…oh let’s see…jerk. And the day that we acknowledge “simultaneous love” as the standard is the day that we have lost the battle. I will celebrate (and that is the right word) my 30th wedding anniversary next July. It has not always been easy. We had some really rough times. But I am so grateful that we persevered. Something happens when a couple grows toward each other. When both parties give up the selfish expectation that the other person is responsible for their happiness then the biblical concept can begin to happen. My wife and I are experiencing that mystical journey of the two becoming one and I am more in love with her today than I was 30 years ago. There is a richness and depth to our relationship that could never be found in “simultaneous love”.

Attalli has anticipated the battle with dinosaurs like me.

“The demise of monogamy will not come without a struggle (#$%& right!). All the churches will seek to forbid it, especially for women. (How about letting the women speak for themselves Jacque? Perhaps they would have a different take on your simultaneous love idea. I know that my bride would beg to differ).

Attalli sees that ultimately the “battle” will be won.

“For a while, they (those backward church people) will hold the line. But individual freedom (aka selfishness), once again, will triumph. The revolution will begin in Europe (surprise), America will follow (sadly likely), and the rest of the world will eventually come around.”

Here is the truly heartbreaking part of Mr.Attalli’s vision.

“Relationships with children will be radically different, (No kidding. Son, meet my friend Poopsie. She is my current successive love relationship) financial relationships will be disrupted and how and where we live will change. To be sure, it will take decades for the change to be complete, and yet, if we look around, it is already here. Beneath our hypocrisies – in movies, novels, and music – the shape of our future is visible.”

If Hollywood and the music industry defines our future we have truly hit cultural rock bottom and with a sickening thud. Do any of these elite thinkers ever visit a real community in a far away place like Iowa? I believe the results of a culture defined by movies, novels, and music would be devastating. (Told you I have achieved grumpy old man status). May we call a spade a spade? A large percentage of our narcissistic culture is no longer willing to sacrifice in marriage or as parents. The trail of wounded men, women, and children left behind by philosophies like Mr.Attalli’s is epidemic. And yes, the Christian church has not consistently modeled God’s ideal. But circumventing the truth does not change the truth. We are wired for a relationship with God and for intimate relationship with our mates. Tsunamis of testosterone does not change that truth. As King Solomon noted there is nothing new under the sun. In the book of Judges the people rejected the standards of God.

In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.  Judges 21:25 (NASB77)

Doing what is right in your own eyes does not make it right. I love my wife. I intend to remain monogamous until death do us part. Monogamy is not on life support. But I cannot say the same about the values of our culture.

Recently the Dallas Morning News ran an op-ed feature called ‘10 ideas on the way out’. The subtitle confidently proclaimed that by 2040 many of the things we take for granted will no longer exist. I quickly scanned the list to see if major league baseball’s designated hitter would be an idea that would not endure. Sadly, that did not make the list.

The list was a mixture of intriquing and frightening. According to these experts monogamy will be a quaint ideal from a less enlightened era and it will no longer be the norm. I am glad I will be dead before my wife finds that out. Another predicts the demise of the British Monarchy. But the one that rocked my world was seeing the number one item on the list penned by a man named Peter Singer. I believe he is one of the most dangerous people on the planet. That seems like a pretty bold statement because he is a rather average looking academician at Princeton University. He is ironically the Chairman of the Ethics Department at Princeton and his ideas are widely accepted by those with bigger brains than you and me.

Let me quote some of Mr. Singer’s predictions for the future about the sanctity of life. My thoughts are italicized.

“During the next 35 years, the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological and demographic developments. By 2040, (here comes a good part) it may be may be that only a rump of hard-core, know-nothing religious fundamentalists will defend the view that every human life, from conception to death, is sacrosanct.”

Since there is a good chance I will have checked out by 2040 I am considering forming a secret organization to maintain the “rump” of hard-core, know-nothing religious fundamentalists. Let me know if you would like to be a charter member of the “Rumps of the Know-Nothings”. For Monty Python fans we will be the knights who say no. But in all seriousness it is dismaying for Mr.Singer to dismiss all who believe in the sanctity of life as know nothings. I believe that Peter Singer knows a lot. I just believe he is wrong. Could he not extend at least that much courtesy to me and the other rumps? Continuing with Mr. Singer’s piece…

“When the traditional ethic of the sanctity of human life is proved indefensible at both the beginning and end of life, a new ethic will replace it. It will recognize that the concept of a person is distinct from that of a member of the species Homo sapiens, and that it is personhood, not species membership, that is most significant in determining when it is wrong to end a life.”

Who determines “personhood”? If it is always in the hands of the family you can get very different views. If it is in the hands of the government I shudder. Does a doctor determine “personhood”? I have a very personal stake in this debate. Surprisingly, so does Peter Singer. More on that in a moment. Singer makes an interesting concession that may be the future argument about the beginning of life.

“We will understand that even if the life of a human organism (note the terminology) begins at conception, the life of a person – that is, at minimum, a being with some level of self-awareness – does not begin so early.”

My cynical side reacts that if we took out everyone without a level of self-awareness we would thin the herd significantly. But the tacit admission (sort of) that there is no other logical point except conception for the beginning of life is interesting. The argument now becomes the elusive point at which the “organism” achieves “personhood”. And that is a frightening judgement to make apart from some standard.

Now for the personal side of the argument. Twenty years ago a daughter was born into our family. Katie was born with a birth defect that caused an absence of brain development. By Mr.Singer’s standards she was not a “person” because she could not achieve some level of self-awareness. According to Mr.Singer Katie should have been aborted or euthanized after birth (yes, he advocates that) because she had no potential for personhood. But the fourteen month life of Katie was an amazing blessing for our family. In retrospect I shudder at the prospect of aborting her life. Yet it might have seemed the right thing to do in the emotion of the moment. Katie’s inspiring story is told in full in When Bad Christians Happen to Good People. But my reaction to Katie’s life is just the emotional response of a religious rump…right? Let’s see what happens when Mr.Singer had to apply his theories to real life.

Peter Singer’s mother is suffering from Alzeiheimers. By his own definition she no longer has the measure of self-awareness that defines personhood. So how has Mr.Singer responded? Like a person who deep in his being believes in the dignity of life. He has poured thousands of dollars into her care when there can be no return for the greater good of society. That money would be far better spent on those who have societal value and not just, as Mr. Singer described, possessing species membership. This is money wasted in Singer’s ultilitarian worldview.

Peter Singer addressed the dilemma. “I think this has made me see how the issues of someone with these kinds of problems are really very difficult. Perhaps it is more difficult than I thought before, because it’s different when it’s your mother.” Now it is personal and Singer’s ideas don’t work. Peter Singer’s mother has value and deserves to be cared for until her last natural breath. Our daughter had value and deserved the same. That is my worldview. I can live with mine.

I knew that our family Thanksgiving would be a bit different this year. We were in the midst of a whirlwind tour of Israel when Turkey Day arrived. As the day dawned in Jerusalem I remembered past Thanksgivings with family all around. Watching the Macy’s Parade while the tantilizing aromas of roasting turkey and pumpkin pie and fresh baked bread filled the house. Watching the football games, eating way too much, and  then the afternoon lapse into semi-consciousness known as the traditional Thanksgiving day nap. I knew that this year would be a little different but I had no idea how much.

When I heard our schedule I knew this would be a Thanksgiving like no other. Our final activity for this day would be a visit to the Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem. My first reaction was “no, no, not today”. But then I reconsidered. What better reminder of how very much I have to be thankful for than to relive this abomination of history.

We pulled up to impressive facility and began the tour. My heart was pierced within the first moments when I read a display about the deadening silence of the Christian church during much of this evil genocide. I recalled the haunting words of Elie Wiesel who said, “The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference.”  I prayed that I would never allow my convenience and comfort to overcome the responsibility to speak out.

I wanted to look away from the pictures of smiling children innocently and unknowingly being resigned to death. I struggled to absorb the depth of evil as I looked at the hollow eyes of death camp prisoners. I saw Jews and Christians weeping side by side as testimonies of the horrors were recounted by survivors.

I was overwhelmed by the Hall of Names…a giant repository containing millions of names and testimonies. My heart ached as I walked through the Children’s Memorial dedicated to the 1.5 million children who perished. I tried to grasp the enormity of that number. Dallas has a population of about 1.2 million. What if Dallas were exterminated? Yet that would fall 300,000 short of the children who died at the hands of these monsters.

I left the Yad Veshem (Holocaust Museum) in contemplative silence.

Fast forward to home. And I pick up this story from USA Today….

The leader of the largest branch of American Judaism blasted conservative religious activists in a speech Saturday, calling them “zealots” who claim a “monopoly on God” while promoting anti-gay policies akin to Adolf Hitler’s. Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the liberal Union for Reform Judaism, said “religious right” leaders believe “unless you attend my church, accept my God and study my sacred text you cannot be a moral person.”

I believe Mr.Yoffie comments border on hate speech at worst and ignorance at best. I am part of the evangelical “religious right”. I have NEVER said that unless you attend my church, accept my God, or study my sacred text that you cannot be a moral person. I know moral people who are agnostics and Christians and Jews and Buddhists and Muslims and you name it. No religion has the exclusive franchise on morality. I can find only a handful of extreme nutcases who would say such things out of the sixty million or so who call themselves evangelical Christians. In a later interview Mr. Yoffie said he meant to include all conservative faith activists including Jews. I have to take him at his word although in context his remarks seemed to be targeted toward the Christian right.

“We cannot forget that when Hitler came to power in 1933, one of the first things that he did was ban gay organizations,” Yoffie said.

I noted sadly that another thing that Hitler did early on was to begin to euthanize the disabled and mentally challenged. Under the banner of the greater good for all and quality of life these souls were snuffed out. Tomorrow we will address a man named Peter Singer who is making the same argument from Princeton University.

But he said, overall, conservatives too narrowly define family values, making a “frozen embryo in a fertility clinic” more important than a child, and ignoring poverty and other social ills.

Who is saying that? I believe the message is that life is sacred and man is a poor arbitrator of when it can or should be ended.

You would think a Rabbi would understand better than most the slippery slope of value judgements on life that are based on prevailing cultural shifts. Perhaps a review of the Torah would be instructive.

Listen to me, you islands;
       hear this, you distant nations:
       Before I was born the LORD called me;
       from my birth he has made mention of my name.  Isaiah 49

The word of the LORD came to me, saying,  “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
       before you were born I set you apart;    Jeremiah 1

God seems to indicate that life began for Isaiah or Jeremiah before they were “viable”.

After leaving the Yad Veshem I decided to never again call anyone Hitler or any group Nazis. Can we agree to disagree without invoking such polarizing and inflammatory rhetoric? There is no Hitler that I have seen in the religious right. No one in that group deserves to be called Nazis. You have every right to argue with them and dispute their views. You hurt the cause with the name calling.

And one more thing. I left the Yad Vesham feeling deeply thankful for how much God has blessed me. It was a tough way to spend Thanksgiving. But I am grateful that I did.

 

 

 

On Sunday I returned home from my first tour of Israel. And today I stumbled across an article from the Christian Science Monitor that was written just a week before we left. The following paragraph is from that story.

Officials in Israel say that out of about 2 million people who will realize their dream of visiting the Holy Land this year, more than half will be Christian. And among those, more than half will be Evangelical. With that in mind, the Israeli ministry of tourism has gone public with a plan to build – in partnership primarily with American Evangelical churches – a sprawling Holy Land Christian Center on the northern shores of the Sea of Galilee, home to some of the most notable chapters in Jesus’ ministry. The center, to be built on approximately 125 acres that the Israeli government is offering free of cost, would be a Christian theme park and visitors’ center, one that would be particularly attractive to Evangelicals and other Christians who want to spend more time in the places where Jesus walked. Christian Science Monitor, November 10, 20

I understand the strategy. I suppose it is a good idea from a business and tourism point of view. But something about this concept troubles me. If I go to Orlando I expect theme parks and “attractions”. When I go to Israel I want to see the land of Abraham and David and Jesus and Paul.

Period.

I am sure the planners want the park to be tasteful. But the descriptions of potential accoutrement’s include an online broadcast center, which would give religious leaders an opportunity to address their followers back home, live, near the tranquil blue waters of the Sea of Galilee. Here is where my gift of cynicism flares up (I am still trying to find that listed among the spiritual gifts). Can you imagine the potential for over the top pride in this dangerous concept? The idea of clouds of hair spray and caked on makeup to impress the followers back home is a bit unstable to me. And shouldn’t the only reason to go on this journey be as followers of Jesus? I respect many Christian leaders and teachers. I follow Jesus. That was a lesson learned the hard way.

I reflected on just a handful of my experiences in Israel.

• Reliving the incredible story of Masada and realizing that David might have camped in this very place.
  
• The sobering sight of Megiddo…the Biblical location of Armageddon.
  
• Riding a boat onto the Sea of Galilee and imagining Jesus calming the waves.
  
• Standing on the Mount of Beatitudes and hearing the most amazing sermon in history read.
  
• Walking on pavement that Jesus had very likely walked on Himself.
  
• Looking at Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives and reading the words of Jesus describing the destruction of the temple.
  
• Standing at the Pool of Siloam and recalling the man who had been crippled for 38 years being healed by a command from Jesus.
  
• Marveling at 2000 year old olive trees in the Garden of Gethsemane that may have been there when Judas betrayed Jesus with a kiss.
  
• Seeing a young family from our group being baptized in the Jordan River.
  
• Walking through Caesarea Phillipi and recalling the amazing exchange between Peter and Jesus.

When Jesus arrived in the villages of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “What are people saying about who the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some think he is John the Baptizer, some say Elijah, some Jeremiah or one of the other prophets.” He pressed them, “And how about you? Who do you say I am?”

       Simon Peter said, “You’re the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”           Matthew 16 – The Message

Being in the place where such exchanges took place was overwhelming. I imagined myself being asked that question by Jesus. How have I answered what is perhaps the most important question I will ever be asked?

How have you answered that question?

For years I have believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, and the Son of the Living God. But there was something about standing in the spot where Jesus spoke to Peter that made scripture come alive in a way that is indescribable.

Perhaps the Holy Land Christian Center will have an incredible ministry in the lives of those who visit.

But it is hard to imagine that this holy place needs any help.